The case for the acquisition of Greenland
Instead of using tariffs, I wish that President Trump would have gone directly to the fundamental points of disagreement with the European community, the EU and NATO (and even the UN). I would have stressed to NATO members that the U.S. is reconsidering our position and continuation of NATO membership, since Europeans don’t agree with us, not only on national and European security grounds for the U.S. acquisition of Greenland, but also with the maintenance of traditional Western values, such as freedom of speech, traditional morality (based on our share Judeo-Christian values), globalization, multiculturalism, illegal immigration/deportation, individual freedom, etc.— all of which they have contrary positions to our own policies, or have discarded, imposed, or rejected.
During a contentions House Armed Services Committee hearing on June 12, 2025, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth made it clear that the defense of Greenland was imperative for the national security of the United States and consequently for the West. His remarks support President Trump’s 2026 stance that it is “unacceptable” for Greenland to be possessed by a country like Denmark that cannot defend the strategic island from external threats from Russia or China, whereas the U.S. can. I agree with President Trump and Secretary of War Hegseth and have built a case here that the acquisition of Greenland is necessary not only for the need of strategic minerals and rare earth metals but is also needed for geopolitical reasons and the strategic military defense of the West.
We should make clear to the Europeans that not sharing our values translates also to not sharing the burden of their Defense. Their political intransigence suggests that they are capable of defending Greenland on their own against China and Russia. We should therefore consider pulling out of NATO and shifting the burden of Greenland’s defense to Denmark and the full burden of European defense to the EU and NATO— without the U.S..
The United States need Greenland. Using history as a guide, we wonder how many of us Americans who now oppose the acquisition of Greenland, would have opposed Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase in 1803 or the acquisition of Alaska from the Russian Tsar Alexander II in 1867?
Where would we be today without those purchases? We have to think about the security of ours and future generations of Americans. Yes, it is time to place the security of this nation first, not to incite political opposition against everything Trump does or the hatred that the Democrats have for the prosperity of this country, or the shortsightedness or the invocation of moral or political scruples about the acquisition by many Republicans. Some Americans oppose it claiming ignorance of the topic; while other have been so subtly indoctrinated by the liberal, globalist media that they oppose it as a matter of course because of the media propaganda that opposes Trump at every turn.
Trump is aware he is risking his reputation and gaining the hatred of the world for his truculent attitude for annexing Greenland, but he is willing to do it because he knows, like Jefferson knew in 1803 and President Andrew Johnson recognized in 1867, that the acquisition of these territories was essential and would be of great benefit to the U.S. in the future.
Could we have won the Cold War if the U.S. had been one-third, one-half, or two-thirds of what it would have been if we had not gained the Louisiana and the Mexican territories during our pursuit of Manifest Destiny, which hinged largely on the Louisiana Purchase? Could we have helped liberate Europe from the Nazis during World War II, if we had not been the powerful nation that we were because of the addition of those territories? Could we have won the cold war without the security of possessing Alaska with its strategic position for NORAD strategic defense?
If the Europeans had agreed with us, it would then have been easier to convince Greenlanders as well as Americans of our need for Greenland. As things stand now, only 25% of Americans support Trump in this endeavor because they do not understand that the security of America depends on our acquisition of this immense and strategically located island in our hemisphere.
Right now, the NATO alliance seems in a state of flux, uncertain about its own future, much less of the assurance of coverage in the pact for the defense of Greenland, and yet, there is no significant military presence in Greenland which means that China, Russia, or even a proxy force from North Korea could be mobilized and take possession of at least a part of the island. That scenario could be catastrophic, compromising logistics between military bases in the U.S. and Europe. Yes, there are lots of minerals, rare earth metals, and other resources vital to the U.S. in Greenland but it’s even necessary and vital to have a completely reliable military presence on the island.
Those Americans who don’t think the communist Chinese are a danger in our own hemisphere, especially around the Artic regions, including and particularly around Greenland (and the island itself in the near future), should think again. The Chinese seem to be ahead of us on militarily on humanoid and canine robotics and “intelligentized warfare,” as well as in the number of icebreakers to penetrate the Arctic with or without Russian assistance.
I understand that Greenland does not want to stay with the Danes or the U.S.. They purportedly want independence. But the reality is that Greenland with its scanty population cannot remain independent. There are too many sharks out there and they are easy prey as a gigantic and undefended isolated island. It could easily fall prey to China or Russia and thereby incite World War III, as the Danes are ostensibly part of NATO. And if war broke out, NATO and the U.S. would then be at a disadvantage because Russia (and its allies China and North Korea), have a better foothold in the Arctic Ocean given Russia’s massive geographical advantage. The U.S. has a small base in Greenland, the Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), one and only American installation there with only 150-200 personnel and already supporting strategic space and defense missions, but it is inadequate to police the entire island and it could be easily neutralized if the Chinese or Russians established a foothold elsewhere in the large island.
So now in time of peace, the Greenlanders are left with having to choose among China, Russia, or the U.S., or ultimately the Jihadists, who want to colonize and win the world for Islam. That is reality! NATO sending a few troops is a finger in the dyke temporary exigency. Greenland remains insecure, and if Greenland is not secure Canada and the U.S. are not secure and neither would be our European allies. Apparently, the islanders and the Europeans want to be protected at American expense in blood and treasure. It is not going to continue to happen. They most see it as we see it. And if our European allies still do not agree, then it is time to rethink our continued participation in NATO. Trade and Tariffs with our friends and present allies should not enter this unique, geopolitical strategic picture.
Greenland has a high poverty rate with 17 to 18% of the population living below the poverty line and heavily dependent of Danish economic subsidies. This figure is much higher than the rate of poverty for Denmark, despite the island’s rich natural resources. The U.S. should approach the Greenlanders with promises (and fulfillment) of developing their natural resources, increasing jobs, building infrastructure, and overall lifting their standard of living. We must attain Greenland as a willing and participating population.
And let’s remember that whatever Trump achieves, as far as Greenland and NATO, will have to be codified by Congress and this will not happen except by a political miracle, which all depends on the American electorate recognizing what President Trump has done for this country! If they did, they would vote GOP super-majorities in congress that would codify all his achievements, but frankly I’m doubtful of the re-awakening sagacity of the American people.
Dr. Miguel A. Faria is Associate Editor in Chief in neuropsychiatry; history of medicine; and socioeconomics, politics, and world affairs of Surgical Neurology International (SNI). The reader is invited to read more on geopolitical history and military strategy for the defense of freedom in his book, Stalin, Mao, Communism, and their 21st-Century Aftermath in Russia and China (2024), Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K..